What is it about mankind that sets us apart?

Did we invent cars, planes, and household appliances because we are smarter than the other species? Is that the reason why we left the wilderness in favor of sprawling metropolises of steel and concrete? There is more to us and that. We dont just have bigger brains. We have different brains. There is something profoundly unique and complex about the human mind. In his essay, The Corner of the Eye, Lewis Thomas reveals the complexity of the human mind. He compares it to computers, stating how he no longer feared that artificial intelligence could usurp mankind as in science fiction. Computers can compute large amounts of data instantly and often more efficiently than the human brain. They can perform many programmed tasks that would normally be done by humans. However, as Thomas (2000) states, they are not designed, as we are, for ambiguity (p. 610). The example Thomas uses throughout his essay to demonstrate this is language. He states that a computer would have trouble creating its own language. A structured grammar and a vocabulary comprised of etymons, the original, pure, unambiguous words used to name real things, would be no problem for a machine (Thomas, 2000, p. 610-611). However the problem lies in communication. A computer would not be able to make what Thomas calls the necessary mistakes that humans make. After all, we often misuse words and change their meanings. Such variation occurs due to a variety of reasons. Sometimes there are differences in culture, in history, or in translation. We also use metaphors that indirectly describe ideas that cannot, without great difficulty, be represented literally. Such abuse of the rules is beyond the comprehension of programming. In his essay, The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat, Oliver Sacks (2006) also makes a comparison between a computer and a person. However the person in question is a 1

patient of his who has lost the aspect of humanity that separates us from computers, due to some unknown neurological disorder. Dr. P. is a music teacher, and a very talented one. Unfortunately, he has been having problems with seeing, in which he would mistake inanimate objects for living ones. Eventually he was referred to Dr. Sacks, a neurologist, in order to ascertain what exactly was wrong with him. What Sacks found out was that Dr. P. was not blind, but had an issue with the visual cortex of his brain. He was unable to see anything besides the minutest details of things and even people. He was incapable of seeing anything as a whole. Sacks (2000) states that [it] wasnt merely that he displayed the same indifference to the visual world as a computer but-even more strikingly-he construed the world as a computer construes it, by means of key features and schematic relationships (p. 76). Sadly Dr. P. was not able to recognize most of his colleagues, friends, and even family. When I consider Dr. P.s story I think of a guitarist in a band playing a concert. When I listen to a song I think of all of the tiny aspects that make the performance as a whole. The guitar riffs are played by the guitarist, heard by the electronic pickups on the guitar, and then sent down the instrument cable which may go through a series of effects before being plugged into an amplifier. From the amplifier the sound is sent to all the speakers for the crowd to hear and someone somewhere is mixing this live feed to get the best possible sound. But before a guitarist can play anything he/she must put hours of practice into strengthening his/her fingers and improving his/her skill. The guitarist also needs to have a well trained ear for music and perhaps even background in music theory. But thats not all. The song itself would need to come to fruition, perhaps beginning as a riff in the guitarist comes up with or lyrics in the head of the singer. Whatever it may be, a lot of collaboration is needed for a song to be fleshed out. Then it needs to be recorded, mixed, and mastered. The music has to be distributed to garner a large

enough fanbase and finally the show itself can be scheduled. When I see bands performing, especially unsigned or newly signed bands, I always think of the amount hard work that lies behind the song I am hearing performed. This applies to more than just musicians; there is always a vast and complex history and detail that goes into any human endeavor. These details are often in many ways interrelated. Thomas highlights this interrelatedness as he demonstrates how words are connected in such vast and complex ways that only a human mind could possibly comprehend it. He compares two concepts in particular, earth and man, to demonstrate these relationships. In ancient Hebrew, Thomas (2000) states, adamha was the word for earth, adam for man (p. 611). He demonstrates how the concept of earth leads to that of mankind. The reverse is also true. The first root of man was wiros which became the Germanic word weraldh, meaning the life of man (Thomas, 2000, p. 611). Eventually this became the English word world (Thomas, 2000, p. 611). Human concepts are always associated with some connotation; therefore their meanings are many and varied. Thomas describes the planet like a living creature. He describes how it floats, manufacturing its and breathing its own oxygen, fixing its own nitrogen from the air into its own soil, generating its own weather at the surface of its rain forests, constructing its own carapace from living parts: chalk cliffs, coral reefs, old fossils from earlier forms of life covered now by layers of new life meshed together around the globe (Thomas, 2000, p. 612). The planet is a densely interconnected web, and by taking into account Thomas previous idea about the connection between humans and the world, he is indirectly describing the web that is the human mind as well. We possess the necessary traits to see this complex web of ideas that is so full of ambiguity. Thomas states that this ability is to see out of the corner of the eye. If you were to

look straight at an object, keeping it the focus of your attention, you would be able to piece together some information about it. For example you could know what it looks like, what it is doing, what it can do. But there is still more to know about it. That is why we have peripheral vision. We can see vaguely, from the corner of our eye that there is more to the picture. Without turning around we can see clues as to what our entire surroundings look like. This information can be used to infer more about the object we first focused on. Our mind then processes all of this information, categorizing it and expanding a network of different aspects. Being able to see from the corner of the eye is the ability that humans possess to comprehend ambiguity. Ambiguity is the keystone of this web. Because the lines between many human concepts are blurred we can forge connections in ways only humans can make apparent. This gives rise to another aspect that is unique to the human mind, perhaps more so than ambiguity. Let us go back to language. We have attached many meanings and connotations to words and phrases. Therefore it is not uncommon to see definitions that disagree. Contradiction is another aspect of humanity, one that is integral to the network like system our brains run on. While Thomas has shown us the vast web of connection that forms our thoughts, he barely scratches the surface of how our contradictory ideas shape our thoughts. Michelle Sui demonstrates the paradoxical nature of the human mind in her essay Test Flight. In it she discusses her feeling of fear as well as motivation for gymnastics. She is at war with herself because she envies her friend Davids apparent fearlessness but cannot get over her own dread of performing a dangerous stunt. As she wrestles with her emotions she reflects on ambiguity of some of her feelings. She describes the gray zone, the place where she feels she rests, caught between fear and her love of performance (Sui, 2011, p. 149). The ambiguity leads to a confrontation between the two. In her essay, Sui cites the box example from Gertrude

Steins Tender Buttons. To Sui (2011), the versatile box is what artists should strive to become, volatile, malleable, [and] utterly open (149). Sui (2011) states how Stein calls the box winged and that it can provide shelter, protection, and endless possibilities (p. 150). On the other hand it is also suffocating and can become a cage for the user (Sui, 2011, p. 150). Sui (2011) believes, however, that this paradox should be accepted by the artist (p. 150). After all it is an artists job, in a sense, to understand human nature in order to represent it. Humans can deal with such paradoxes because we have a concept of a gray zone. A computer on the other hand can only give you a yes or a no. The only maybe it could give you is in the form of an error message. This gray zone is where most of us consciously reside. As we gaze upon this ambiguous grayscale, what makes up the black and white areas that lie in the opposite corners of our vision? These areas of contradiction make up our archetypes. They are models of the extremes that can exist in our world. They make up the characters in our literature, and in a way it is because they could not possibly exist as real flesh and blood people. They are one dimensional existences, only practical for the sake of telling the story. But in our sub consciousness they also are the form given to our paradoxes. The most epitomic example is that of the hero and villain. The hero, ever triumphant, is what children are told to aspire to be. The villain, always up to no good, is disdained upon and never wins. Morality is a uniquely human invention. Through allegorical devices we are taught from an early age to distinguish between right and wrong. And yet, by our nature, we contradict ourselves again. Good people may do bad things and bad people may do good things. Again, we reside in the gray zone; we attempt to do good but we must first fight off our inner demons.

Richard Selzer brings us into the mind of a surgeon battling such demons. He holds in his hand, the powerful scalpel, a knife that he must use to save a persons life. The surgeon also knows that the knife is also a tool used to maim and even kill people. He describes it as voracious beast with a consciousness of its own. Selzer (2000) iterates how while the knife could be deadly, the surgeon must curb its power for a purpose to heal rather than maim (p. 688). Perhaps Selzer unwittingly stumbled upon the answer as to why we have a conscience. We have been blessed with great intellects and a complexity unique to us, but at what cost? We have, for example, created advancements in technology that have reshaped both the way we live and the planet we live on. But it is not always a positive change. The advent of the nuclear age gave mankind the power to level the surface of the earth and kill millions. Everyday people die due to war and criminal acts. We are the only organism that kills for reasons other than survival. We arent all born as murders but this self-destructive aspect is rampant in our societies. So what has prevented us from destroying ourselves? We all suffer from guilt. Perhaps morality was an evolutionary step, an adaptation to keep us in the running against natural selection. Ambiguity and contradiction make up our complex thought process. This gives rise to our ability to manifest our imaginations, to create. Ethics in turn keeps us in check, preventing us from letting the knife loose. But how did we end up this way? From an evolutionary standpoint we evolved from ancient apes and developed tools. What could have triggered that series of events? It may be curiosity, something that continuously defines the human race. In his essay, Thomas (2000) talks about the pleasure his physicist friends get from [amending the laws of physics with] a new footnote (p. 612). As humans, we are driven to find out more, in part due to our capacity to understand more. This leads us to not only learn about our world but

ourselves as well. It is the reason why I can write this very essay now. We have are a self-aware species and it is intrinsic that we understand what that entails. Take Dr. P for example. While it is clear to his loved ones as well as Dr. Sacks that he is suffering from a problem, Dr. P himself is blissfully unaware. Should we be concerned about whether we are like Dr. P, mistaking his wife for his hat? If we are, then we should be. After all, the complexity of the human mind allows to both ask and answer these questions.

References
Selzer, R. (2000). The Knife. Pat C. Hoy II & Robert DiYanni, Eds. Encounters: Essays for Exploration and Inquiry. 2nd ed. New York, NY: McGraw Thomas, L. (2000). The Corner of the Eye. Pat C. Hoy II & Robert DiYanni, Eds. Encounters: Essays for Exploration and Inquiry. 2nd ed. New York, NY: McGraw Sui, M. (2011). Test Flight. Pat C. Hoy II & Andrea McKenzie, Eds. Mercer Street (pp. 147-151). New York, NY: New York University. Print. Sacks, O. (2006). The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat. Writing the Essay: Science. Andrea McKenzie and Jason Drake, Eds. (pp. 69-83). New York, McGraw